PetitionLens
All decisions
DismissedEB-2 · Motion to reopen & reconsider

PHYSICIAN AND RESEARCHER

Clinical & health · decided 2013-08-02 · NSC · AUG022013_01B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

Decided under the old NYSDOT test, replaced by Matter of Dhanasar on Dec 27, 2016. Useful for background only.

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

The director found that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. See in text

What the AAO decided

Main reasons given

  • The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional evidence pertaining to his eligibility for the classification sought. See in text
Read the full decision (2 pages)

Objections found (0)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

No catalog objection was detected in the analysis section.

    Full decision

    OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

    Highlighted: Outcome (1) AAO finding (1)Matter of X citation
    Decision header
    Ail&:: 0 2 2013 Office: NEBRASKA SERVICE CENTER · INRE: Petitioner: · Beneficiary: U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Office of Administrative Appeals 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services FILE: · PETITION: Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced

    Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2)

    ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:

    INSTRUCTIONS:

    Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to your case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively . Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form 1-2908) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http://www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F .R. § 1 03.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO .

    Thank you,

    ))/OfJJ!ndG f Ron Rosenberg

    Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www. uscis.gov

    NON-PRECEDENT DECISION

    DISCUSSION: The Director, Nebraska Service Center, denied the immigrant visa petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The appeal will be summarily dismissed.

    The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United States. The director found that the petitioner had not established that an exemption from the requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States.

    In Part 2 of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, counsel for the petitioner checked box "A" indicating "My brief and/or additional evidence is attached." Therefore, the appellate submission constitutes the entire appeal. The petitioner, however, did not submit a brief or other documentation on appeal except for a copy of the director's denial notice.

    Part 3 of the Form I-290B includes a space to "[p]rovide a statement explaining any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the decision being appealed." Counsel states:

    THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT [THE PETITIONER'S] WORK AS A PHYSICIAN AND RESEARCHER IN ONCOLOGY ADN [sic] STEM CELL TRANSPLANTATION HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTRINSIC MERIT, IS NATIONAL IN SCOPE, AND THAT HE WILL SERVE THE NATIONAL INTEREST TO A GREATER DEGREE THAN A WORKER HAVING MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS.

    Counsel's statement fails to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact in the director's decision. Counsel does not specifically challenge any of the director's findings or point to specific errors in the director's analyses of the documentary evidence. In addition, counsel does not explain how the specific documentation that the petitioner submitted supports a finding of eligibility. A passing reference without substantive arguments is insufficient to raise that ground on appeal. Desravines v. US. Atty. Gen., 343 Fed.Appx. 433, 435 (11th Cir. 2009).

    As stated in 8 C.P.R. § 103.3(a)(l)(v), an appeal shall be summarily dismissed if the party concerned fails to identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. The petitioner has not specifically addressed the reasons stated for denial and has not provided any additional evidence pertaining to his eligibility for the classification sought. The appeal must therefore be summarily dismissed.

    ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.